Any thoughts either way? For a 6000m peak in South America - sustained 40-60 ice for ~3,500 ft. June/July. Pros/cons? I already have 8000m boots and Nepal Evo's (love them both, but need something warmer than the Evo's and less bulky than the 8000m boots).

Sidenote, what's the biggest helmet they make for mountaineering/ice climbing purposes. I have a 7 7/8 size head (US) and most helmets look like a yamaka on me. Maybe one with an ice shield?

Thanks all. Hope everything in your world is going ok.

Have you read Dane's blog: http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/10 ... iners.html

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... antik.html

Remember, fit is a very personal things. Dane's technical analysis (weight, volume) are spot on. I tried Baruntse at the shop and immediately felt hot spot to the side of my ankles. I have met quite a few people who complain about the Baruntse, especially hot spots on the ankle. I went with the Spantik and absolutely love them. Their performance on ice is good, my personal experience with Spantik is that they climb very well, I've used them up to WI4+ range and feel solid.
If you can try them on at a shop, do that and make a decision for yourself. I'll be honest, the price difference ($100) is tiny compare to what you paid for your trips in the future.

I beg your pardon

Fit is a very personal thing. Which is why the Baruntse will fit more people better than the Spanik ever will. The Baruntse inner boot needs to be heat molded to fit correctly. It was never meant to be used "out of the box" without molding. Most climbers/sales people haven't the sense to do it right or do it at all. The Spantik inner will heat mold, but most don't bother. There is very little there to heat mold any way. The Spantik inner boot will fit and work for some without the extra effort of a perfect fit that the Baruntse offers if heat molded and fit correctly.

I have and climb in both boots. Both were heat molded by professionals.
No question both boots will climb well. The Baruntse will always climb better than the Spantik on technical ground because of the more exacting lacing system.

I'll caution again...do not judge the fit of a Baruntse by slipping your foot into an un molded boot on a show room floor. That is as dumb as judging a good ski boot fit by doing the same. It is simply BAD advice. Baruntse's inner is a HUGE step up in technology and durability over the Spantik or Oly Mons inner. So much more that I use the Baruntse inner in my Spantiks and Oly Mons when required. All the inners fit me well enough when molded but the Barantse inner is by far the best fit you'll get in any La Sportiva boot.

Dane1 wrote: Baruntse's inner is a HUGE step up in technology and durability over the Spantik or Oly Mons inner. So much more that I use the Baruntse inner in my Spantiks and Oly Mons when required. All the inners fit me well enough when molded but the Barantse inner is by far the best fit you'll get in any La Sportiva boot.

Where do you buy spare Baruntse liners?

Edit: Never mind. I found them on the Sportiva site.

How do you fit them? Spantik liners come in half sizes. Baruntse liners come in full sizes. I have Spantiks that are 44 (left foot) and 44.5 (right foot) Should I just get 44 Baruntse liners do you think?

Kai wrote:Spantik liners come in half sizes. Baruntse liners come in full sizes. I have Spantiks that are 44 (left foot) and 44.5 (right foot) Should I just get 44 Baruntse liners do you think?

Neither the Spanik or Baruntse shells come in half sizes. The 44.5 and 45 shells are the same in both boots as an example. 45.5 and 46 are the same as well. So you are using a 44 shell and a 45 shell in your Spantiks. Not easy to match up the inners to because of the shell size differences. I'd use a 45 Baruntse liner. The inners are easier to shrink than stretch and will give more insulation and more fit possibilities.

Good luck on that one. It sounds like a nightmare!

See, this is exactly my point that fit is such a personal thing .
Spantik fit me like a pair of custom made gloves on the showroom floor. As soon as I stepped into them, I knew I have to get them. Call me dumb, but I don't really buy the whole "you have to custom mold in order to get a good fit" sales pitch. But hey, why not, since you are spending that much money on a pair of boots, might as well drop another $100 or so to see if the molded liner will fit or not. If yes, perfect; if not, well, smile and hope you can return the boots.
As for ski boot, show room fitting vs custom molding, eheheh... no comment.

Super sweet advice gents. Thank you very much. I think I'm going to go with the Spantik, but try and find the Baruntse liner and get it molded. That may be the best of both worlds for Peru...

Thanks again guys. I really appreciate your thoughts and insights (as always).

I have Spantiks. I like them a lot.

Which peak/guiding service?

The Baruntse liner will drop weight on the Spantik, fit better over all once molded and be more durable than the factory Spantik liner. Down side is it is less breathable.

When the Spantik first came out heat molding its liner was more a after thought than an intentional design feature. It shows with the tardy info on molding from La Sportiva, The Baruntse liner was designed to be heat molded from the beginning. A good shop will mold the inner for free and guarantee the fit.

I still use the Spantik and original Spantik liner. But I made the effort to mold mine which improved the fit as it does for most everyone.

Make a quick Internet search on the topic and check out the various Spantik "fit" threads on UKC.



The Spantik has become "THE" boot for cold weather climbing. It is literally the uniform boot for winter climbing in Cham. Few have used both boots enough to comment let alone recognise the difference in fit or the differing abilities of each on technical ground. If the Baruntse had been available first I suspect it would be a role reversal as to the popularity of each model.

The Baruntse and the 6000 being used on a one day ascent of the Cassin here:

http://vimeo.com/26046094

I got a pair of used Spantiks in my usual boot size (42).
I tried them out this weekend and they're too big. I haven't tried on any boots in-store since I bought my first pair of boots which were a 42 (6 yrs ago) and I always assumed that was my boot size.

So my question is: is it better that they are too big than too small?

La Sportiva says the 42 is a women's size 10.

http://www.rei.com/sizefinder/lasportiva08.html

anita wrote:So my question is: is it better that they are too big than too small?

Anita - Too small = bad. Too big = bad. But if you had to decide between the two, I'd say 'too big' - that way you can potentially make up the extra volume with a thicker sock(s).

Try the 42 with the thinnest sock possible and see if it's still too small. You really don't need a thick sock with today's double boots (for warmth anyway).

the 42 Spantiks are pretty big with a normal sock. I've got a good inch or so on my toes.
however, I tried on 42 Baturas and they fit pretty close.

arrrghh!

ahh, sorry, I read that wrong - thought your 42's were too small.

strange, I've found Spantik's and Batura's to fit pretty much the same give or take half a size.